Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91900
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.217.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <3A78AC53-5235-4CFE-9F0D-21F5837B6025@gmail.com>
References: <CD067B03-8DE2-42E4-9DA3-34C8B3D0B3D2@gmail.com>
	<E3.2B.14237.979C4E65@pb1.pair.com>
	<56F40965.30302@telia.com>
	<3A78AC53-5235-4CFE-9F0D-21F5837B6025@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:49:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAESVnVpTCgpqCSKT3Q5Mojxq=0f7WhsfB9Zs9M62nAxyU9V=Gw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Midori Kocak <mtkocak@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Larsson?= <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>, 
	Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC Proposal] Null Coalesce Equal Operator
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

Changing "equal" to "assignment" seems to have been the suggestion.
I've taken that into the short-ternary version.  And as a minor edit
(not worth closing/reopening vote) would recommend the same for null
coallesce.

-Sara

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Midori Kocak <mtkocak@gmail.com> wrote:
> there were no suggestions. Do you have one?
>
>> On 24 Mar 2016, at 16:36, Bj=C3=B6rn Larsson <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>=
 wrote:
>>
>> Den 2016-03-13 kl. 02:59, skrev Andrea Faulds:
>>> Hi Midori,
>>>
>>> Midori Kocak wrote:
>>>> Forgive my rookieness and let me introduce my first RFC here: https://=
wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nul=
l_coalesce_equal_operator>
>>>
>>> I think this is a reasonable proposal. I had foreseen that we might add=
 a ??=3D operator some day when I wrote the original RFC for the ?? operato=
r.
>>>
>>> I do have one thing to add, though. It's something of a nitpick, but th=
e name ought to be the "null-coalescing assignment operator". This would fo=
llow the convention of referring to +=3D, -=3D etc. as compound/combined as=
signment operators[1][2], not "equal" operators (which sounds more like wha=
t =3D=3D and =3D=3D=3D do, to me) and avoids the mistake ("coalesce" instea=
d of "coalescing") that I originally made in my RFC for ??.[3] I think that=
 RFC naming is important, because the name the author chooses for a feature=
 tends to be the one that ends up in the manual.
>>>
>>> Anyway, thank you for your RFC!
>>>
>>> [1] http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.assignment.php
>>> [2] https://github.com/php/php-langspec/blob/master/spec/10-expressions=
.md#compound-assignment
>>> [3] https://blog.ajf.me/2015-12-07-poorly-named-rfcs
>>
>> Any conclusion on naming of operator, remain or change?
>>
>> Regards //Bj=C3=B6rn
>>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>